Blog

Case Title: Muzammil & Anr v. State of Karnataka

Date of Order: 01/08/2023

CORAM: Justice M Nagaprasanna

INTRODUCTION

The Karnataka High Court invalidated legal actions commenced against two individuals charged with inscribing a protest slogan, “Hijab is our dignity,” on the premises of a government school in the previous year.

FACTS

In this case, the matter pertains to a complaint filed by the headmaster of the Government Girls High School in Hosapete, Karnataka. The complaint alleged that the walls of the school premises were painted with the words “Hijab is our dignity” using black paint, which the complainant considered to be unauthorised disfigurement by advertisement. The case was registered under Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Places Disfigurement (Prevention) Act, 1981, which deals with penalizing such unauthorized disfigurement.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

Justice M Nagaprasanna, presiding over the case, issued an order based on the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Act. The court pointed out that for an incident to qualify as an offence under Section 3 of the Act, Section 1 of the Act must also be applied. Section 1 of the Act specifies that a place or local area must be brought within the purview of the Act through a notification issued by the State government.

The court noted that Hosapete Town had not been officially notified to fall under the ambit of the Act, and this was an admitted fact. The absence of a notification from the State government designating Hosapete Town as covered by the Act was crucial. The court emphasized that without such a notification, any further legal proceedings conducted against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of legal process and could lead to a miscarriage of justice.

The case was based on a complaint filed by the headmaster against the unauthorized painting on the school walls. After an investigation, the police had filed a chargesheet against the petitioners, presumably the individuals responsible for the painted message. The petitioners sought the quashing of the legal proceedings, arguing that Hosapete Town had not been officially notified as an area covered by the Act. The State, on the other hand, contended that notification was not necessary for Hosapete Town to be considered covered by the Act.

In summary, the court’s judgement rested on the absence of an official notification by the State government designating Hosapete Town as being covered by the Karnataka Open Places Disfigurement (Prevention) Act, 1981. As such, the court held that the legal proceedings initiated against the petitioners were not valid, as the alleged offence occurred in an area that had not been properly notified under the Act. The court’s decision appears to lean in favor of the petitioners, stressing that legal proceedings in this case would be unjust due to the lack of a notification.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Shreya Sharma